Asian Journal of Dental Sciences

Bone-level and tissue-level endosseous implants represent two divergent design philosophies for positioning the implant–abutment junction relative to the alveolar crest, each carrying distinct implications for marginal bone remodelling, peri-implant soft tissue behaviour, and restorative workflow. Although both designs have been used clinically for several decades, no recent narrative synthesis has integrated the mechanistic, clinical, and prosthodontic strands of this literature into a single critical account. This review evaluates the state of knowledge concerning implant survival, marginal bone loss, peri-implant disease susceptibility, soft tissue phenotype interactions, and esthetic and prosthodontic outcomes associated with bone-level and tissue-level implants. A structured narrative literature search was conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, supplemented by citation tracking, covering material published between January 2000 and 7 April 2026, with foundational biological studies from earlier decades retained where historically necessary. The evidence indicates that both designs achieve comparably high implant survival, generally exceeding 95% at ten years, with no consistent superiority of one configuration over the other. Marginal bone loss patterns differ mechanistically: bone-level implants are more sensitive to the position and design of the implant–abutment interface, including platform switching and abutment height, whereas tissue-level implants relocate the microgap coronal to the crest, making early remodelling more dependent on soft tissue thickness and supracrestal tissue height establishment. Peri-implantitis prevalence estimates vary between designs, but pooled comparative data remain statistically inconclusive owing to small trial numbers and substantial heterogeneity. Esthetic outcomes in the anterior maxilla appear comparable when contemporary components and prosthetic protocols are used, and prosthodontic retention method (cement- versus screw-retained) exerts an independent, though modest, influence on marginal bone stability that is somewhat conflated with implant design in the literature. Confidence in most comparative conclusions is limited by clinical heterogeneity, short follow-up, and the predominance of single-centre or manufacturer-affiliated cohorts. Priority research needs include standardised radiographic reference points, longer-term randomised comparisons stratified by soft tissue phenotype, and prospective evaluation of prosthodontic workflow efficiency across designs. Clinically, implant selection should be guided by site-specific soft tissue phenotype, restorative access, and operator familiarity rather than by an assumption of categorical superiority of either design.